[BLML] Could have known (RHO not LHO)

Robert Frick rfrick at rfrick.info
Sat May 21 20:18:09 CEST 2016


Argh can we please have a correct function? RHO revoked. You probably figured that out. That's why the finesse could be safely taken.


On Sat, 21 May 2016 13:18:31 -0400, Robert Frick <rfrick at rfrick.info> wrote:

> That happened here -- declarer needed to avoid a spade loser with AQ in the dummy and two very good reasons to think the king was Kxxx ofside. Then LHO revoked and corrected it, giving him a small spade penalty card.
>
> This made it safe to take the finesse, but declarer was in dummy. Every way back to his hand would force LHO to discard his small spade. Finally declarer worked out that the proper play was to lead the queen of spades while in dummy.
>
> That was how declarer lost to a singleton king onside.
>
> Someone here already noted the problem with "could have" phrases. He could have known this was a good play if he was Garazzo. But he wasn't.
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>


More information about the Blml mailing list